Were not banning anything, he said. Its called portion control  its a typical [way] that companies use and governments use to explain to people whats in their interest and what isnt, he said.

Bloomberg is nothing but a little tyrant. Thank God he’s restricted by the borders of his city. Of course, the good liberals of New York City deserve whatever the hell they get out of what they vote into office....

Hey , we have priorities , ya know !!
Its not like you have a right to a quality education which is government funded and controlled.

See what Bloomie has done to pain medications in city hospitals
See what Bloomie has done to nutrition and sugary drinks
See how Bloomie wouldn’t even allow the State National Guard into the city without weapons despite looting
We have to expand government control since the public cannot be trusted with their own health issues.

13
posted on 03/10/2013 9:47:42 AM PDT
by Tilted Irish Kilt
(Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)

As I am deathly allergic to nicotine, I was ever so grateful that smoking was banned in the workplace. But it upsets me to see the ban getting bigger and bigger. People have been ticketed for smoking in their trucks, by themselves, because that is their workplace. As this happened, my first thought was, okay, what will they ban next? The other disturbing thing is that so many people support this type of intrusion. Why? Ive noticed that these people project. Case in point, Michelle Obama. Michelle is carrying a few extra pounds in the caboose. Ive seen her pictured woofing down the very things she would ban from others. I looked up Bloomberg. He appears lightly built so he probably isnt projecting. He is, however, attempting to control activities that should be well beyond the realm of politics.

Portion control is up to your mommy and your common sense. Get your governments nose out of our personal lives.

This guy just won the grand prize for oppression. No level of government has any right to tell me what legal size any legal drink has to be. This is just the stupidity of political ego and arrogance. Take your nanny state and shove it way up there but be sure to leave room for your head.

It may look crazy to the rest of us, but this is exactly the type of leadership the people of New York want. He would probably easily win a 4th term as mayor. He is probably getting close to being the most voted-for mayor in the history of any city in the country. The people are clearly telling him they like what he is doing, so from his point of view why should he change anything he is doing.

Did they reduce the size of pizza’s? No. He singled out soft drinks for some moronic reason. Even then a person can go into a grocery store, buy a 2 litre coke and chug it. So they are not implementing portion control.

I wish that were the case. He just dropped a chunk of $$$ into the campaign of a woman running for the Los Angeles school board, and I heard there were other campaigns he had funded. He's trying to meddle in places where he doesn't belong. California has enough problems without him. He needs to just STFU and go away.

28
posted on 03/10/2013 10:44:21 AM PDT
by Fast Moving Angel
(A moral wrong is not a civil right: No religious sanction of an irreligious act.)

Sugary drinks are not in the country's interest, but a ground zero victory mosque is? Bloomberg supports the erection of a ground zero victory mosque in the very city where about 2900 people died from the religion/death cult that wants to erect the mosque. Also, Walmart hss been banned from NYC, also. Tis a sick and evil city to keep voting these swine into office.

The country’s interest? Excuse me, I don’t recall that Bloomberg was elected President of the country, let alone King. If the people of NYC really want to put up with his nonsense it’s their business, but I don’t live in NYC and I don’t answer to that a$$clown.

37
posted on 03/10/2013 11:19:10 AM PDT
by hitkicker
(The only thing worse than a politician is a child molester)

If we adhere to the Aristotelian mean and moderation in all things, then sugary drink size creep is to be shunned.

A short visit into most any public place provides views of large and extremely large people. The term is obese. They have a BMI exceeding 30 and have or are destined for poor health. One result is type II diabetes, a difficult to define disease that can be manifest in a host of minor to very serious health problems. Sugar and other carbohydrate excess over time produce the problems.

In the big picture, the problem becomes freedom, liberty, the ability to make choices. Should one be free to guzzle Coke or Pepsi while consuming mass quantities of Do Nuts and Twinkies or should all that stuff be rationed? Should one be restricted from eating a whole cake in one setting or be free to eat and suffer?

Those who tend to actually worry about the concept take both positions. Conservatives say freedom, liberty. Progressives say ration.

Under the concept of govern mandated health care the penalty for a BMI > 30 is a very unhealthy population requiring care that becomes very expensive. Such care can be considered unnecessary if there were adherence to the Aristotelian eating mean in the first place. Regulating moderation is the conclusion. The inability to moderate eating requires regulation to insure the cost of the immoderate action is reduced.

As mayor of a city that taxes beyond the Aristotelian moderation mean and still struggles, the cost of fat asses demanding city health care provided in addition to the state and federal care is a problem. The moderation penalty is not fair in the sense it affects everyone. It affects only the immoderate. Sensible people that drink only 12 oz are not bothered.

Large sugary drinks make people fat
Fat people require more healthcare and associated costs
Eliminate sugary drinks and save the budget
QED

At least they tried to make smoking a “public health” issue, incantation of which words unlocks the police powers, even though they lied about secondhand smoke. But there is no such thing as secondhand large, sugary drinking. Why is it they feel no need to justify themselves anymore? Is the personal finally truly political, as the Marxist always wanted, and everything you do as an individual is now subject to regulation for the good of the whole? When did that happen?

You are in the twilight zone. How a person moderates his food and beverage intake only affects him. People try to make it out as a disease, which it isn’t, even though it can lead to diseases. Neither is drug addiction. It can’t be a disease, in my opinion, if the “cure” is simply to choose to do something less.

But let’s say fattiness is a disease. It still isn’t a public health issue. It still only affects the individual, and as such is cut off from the state’s police powers. Ah, but as you point out, we now have socialized medicine. Meaning everyone’s healthcare is everyone’s else’s business because everyone’s healthcare is a financial burden to the rest of us.

However, someone’s still paying for it. The money gots to come from somewhere. Mainly we decide who pays based on how much more they have than others (from each according to his abilities), or whether you buy unpopular things (sin tax), or how stupid you are (lottery). Why not make fat people lay for themselves? Or is that too much like the old system and common sense?

Here’s a perfect argument for why healthcare shouldn’t be socialized. Not only do undesirables cost us, we in fact encourage more fattiness, as there’s less incentive not to be fat. Yet you’re perfectly fine with socialism. It’s the immoderate who are at fault. But I don’t see why. You ought to embrace crackheads, sloths, sluts and satyrs, gluttons, and daredevils. You’ve guaranteed there’ll be more of them.

The only apparent alternative is to come at them with theaw from the other side. If socialism has removed consequences, then prohibition can remove opportunity. And we all know how well that works.

You may be comforted by fatties getting the business. They’ve abandoned Aristotlean truth and the Protestant ethic, committed one of the sevenly deadly sins, or whatever. But of course we won’t always go after the obviously socially unworthy. If what constitutes public health—and therefore the police powers—within a society with socialized medicine is whatever costs money to treat, or whatever can conceivably lead to costly medical consumption, then the government has power over every conceivable aspect of human life. Life is a disease for which death is the cure, as they say.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.